Judgment :- The petitioner is a Co-operative Electric Supply Society (for short 'the Society'), established for the purpose of supply of electricity within the area, of its operation. It feels aggrieved by the proceedings dated 08-07-2011, issued by the District Cooperative Officer, Karimnagar, the 3rd respondent herein. The 5th respondent made certain complaints before the respondents 2 and 3, as regards the functioning of the society for a particular period. Stating that action has not been taken on his representations, he approached this Court for several times by filing the writ petitions. Writ Petition No.24389 of 2009 is one such writ petition. It was disposed of on 03-06-2010, directing that the enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, (for short 'the Act'), which has already been initiated; shall be concluded within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Te 5th respondent submitted a representation dated 17-04-2011 to the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the 2nd respondent, stating that the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.24389 of 2009 are not complied with, and made a request that, an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act be ordered, once again. Acting on the same, the 2nd respondent issued directions to the 3rd respondent, vide memo dated 08-07-2011. In compliance with the said memo, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 08-07-2011, directing enquiry under Section 51 of the Act into the affairs of the society, with special reference to the financial irregularities, if any, committed by the committee and its employees. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the 4th respondent, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. It is pleaded that the 5th respondent is in the habit of making representations and filing frivolous writ petitions, just to harass the management and the employees of the society. It is stated that the enquiry, that was mentioned in the order dated 03-06-1010, passed by this Court, was concluded with the submission of a report dated 30-06-2010. The petitioner contends that though the 5th respondent was aware of that report he mislead the 2nd respondent by filing representation dated 17-04-2011, and obviously because the petition-mongering attitude of the 5th respondent, the 2nd respondent directed a fresh enquiry, and as a result, the impugned proceedings are issued. The petitioner contends that though the 5th respondent was aware of that report he mislead the 2nd respondent by filing representation dated 17-04-2011, and obviously because the petition-mongering attitude of the 5th respondent, the 2nd respondent directed a fresh enquiry, and as a result, the impugned proceedings are issued. It is urged that once the enquiry was conducted under Section 51, the next step would be, to take action, as provided for under the Act, and that there is no justification on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 for ordering fresh enquiry. The respondents 5 and 6 filed separate counter-affidavits. According to them, several irregularities have taken place in the management of the society, and though repeated efforts were made to get them in line, no fruitful steps were taken. Heard Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, and Sri. M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6. The 5th respondent has filed several representations and submitted numerous petitions to different authorities, as regards the functioning of the society. It appears that he has chosen the Courts and other fora to ventilate his grievances, than to point out the same in the general body meetings, or in the managing committee, through representations. Howsoever usefulsuch efforts may be, they should not be permitted to reach the level of harassment, or crippling the affairs of the society. The 5th respondent filed WP.No.24389 of 2009, complaining that enquiry under Section 51 of the Act is not ordered by the 3rd respondent, in spite of repeated representations. By the time the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the enquiry was already in progress. This Court took note of the fact that the Managing Director of the society, against whom the 5th respondent had grievance; ceased to be in office. The writ petition was disposed of, directing that the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act be concluded within four months from the date of the order. The petitioner made a representation on 17-04-2011 to the 2nd respondent, alleging that in spite of directions issued by this Court, the enquiry was neglected and on account of negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the members of the society committed misappropriation of Rs.30 crores. The petitioner made a representation on 17-04-2011 to the 2nd respondent, alleging that in spite of directions issued by this Court, the enquiry was neglected and on account of negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the members of the society committed misappropriation of Rs.30 crores. Obviously being afraid of the crusade, which the 5th respondent was undertaking against the society, and accusing every possible person connected with it of corruption, the 2nd respondent addressed letter dated 08-07-2011 to the 3rd respondent. Acting on that, the 3rd respondent directed fresh enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. This Court fakes serious exception to the manner in which, the 5th respondent made representations, one after the other. It was at his instance, that an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was ordered earlier, and it is in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, in W.P.No.24389 of 2009, filed by him, that an enquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted on 30-06-2010. Feigning ignorance about it, he made a representation on 17-04-2011, ten months after the report was submitted, repeating his allegations. He did not even mention about the submission of report dated 30-06-2010. It is difficult to believe that the 5th respondent, who is busy in following the affairs of the society; was not aware of that report. Once a report is submitted under Section 51 of the Act, it is required to be placed before the general body of the society and steps, as may be directed by the general body, are to be taken. The respondents, including the 5th respondent are silent as to the nature of steps, that were taken in pursuance of the report dated 30-06-2010. Once an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was ordered and a report is submitted, it is not competent for the respondents 2 and 3 to order fresh enquiry. The only occasion can be, when the competent Court passes an order, setting aside the report and directing fresh enquiry. The impugned order is so callous, that even a reference was made to the enquiry, that was already made, under Section 51 of the Act, and the report submitted therein. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The impugned order is so callous, that even a reference was made to the enquiry, that was already made, under Section 51 of the Act, and the report submitted therein. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the steps, in accordance with law, shall be taken on the report dated 30-06-2010; by the general body of the society, or the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible, and no representation, that may be made by the 5th respondent in this regard shall be entertained. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.